Principes de science économique - 1. Ignorance, action humaine et durée. - Commentaires"Les lois générales qui règlent la marche des choses se nomment des principes, du moment qu'il s'agit de leur application ; c'est-à-dire du moment qu'on s'en sert pour juger les circonstances qui s'offrent, et pour servir de règle à ses actions. La connaissance des principes donne seule cette marche assurée qui se dirige constamment et avec succès vers un bon but." (Say, J.B. (1826), "Discours préliminaires", Traité d'économie politique , 1ère ed. 1806, Calmann-Lévy, Paris, p.16)2019-01-21T18:18:15+01:00georges laneurn:md5:1136DotclearOeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones - G.L.urn:md5:feb984a25d6dc0c31dfbe413e4771da92018-05-24T16:11:57+02:00G.L.<p>Cf. Jean Yves Naudet</p>
<p><a href="https://www.contrepoints.org/2018/05/23/316560-le-vatican-critique-la-finance-mondiale-mais-en-appelle-aussi-a-nos-responsabilites?utm_term=Autofeed&amp;utm_campaign=Echobox&amp;utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1527046204" title="https://www.contrepoints.org/2018/05/23/316560-le-vatican-critique-la-finance-mondiale-mais-en-appelle-aussi-a-nos-responsabilites?utm_term=Autofeed&amp;utm_campaign=Echobox&amp;utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1527046204" rel="nofollow">
https://www.contrepoints.org/2018/0...</a></p>Une réglementation n'est pas un fait historique, elle est donc réversible. - hardyurn:md5:72966ab6ddd725d0675ed4da6a352ce62014-04-15T12:09:55+02:00hardy<p>Mr Lane,</p>
<p>Comme bien souvent absolument remarquable de précision et de clarté, vous ne
ménagez certes pas vos lecteurs car il faut quand même s'accrocher.<br />
Le cours en Euros (ou en dollars) de &quot;convertibilité&quot; nécessaire à la
résolution des maux actuels serait un sujet fort concret que n'aurait pas renié
Rueff il me semble. La convertibilité est nécessaire mais pas suffisante si je
ne me trompe pas ? (les balances dollar ne doivent elles pas disparaitre ?)</p>L'insécurité juridique, le facteur suprême de risque. - g.l.urn:md5:0edba84d9a45f18b041510f9f090ba6c2014-04-14T18:02:31+02:00g.l.<p>Cf. <a href="http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2014/04/14/20002-20140414ARTFIG00111-ces-cinq-articles-insolites-du-code-du-travail.php#xtor=AL-155" title="http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2014/04/14/20002-20140414ARTFIG00111-ces-cinq-articles-insolites-du-code-du-travail.php#xtor=AL-155" rel="nofollow">
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/...</a></p>Honnêteté et absurdisme. - vincent Jappiurn:md5:1263256d4dfd1f63d44eb64af042f4d92014-03-23T08:10:25+01:00vincent Jappi<p>Il ne reste plus qu'à expliquer pourquoi tout cela est &quot;injustifiable&quot; --
c'est-à-dire directement contraire à toute théorie cohérente de la
valeur,<br />
et comment la régulation par les prix de marché permet de s'en passer
complètement.<br />
Du point de vue historique, peut-être faudrait-il retrouver, à chaque étape de
l'aggravation, des auteurs qui s'y seraient opposés pour les bonnes raisons
?</p>
<p>Autrement, on n'aurait qu'une suite d'affirmations on ne peut plus
véridiques mais pas prouvées du tout,<br />
suivies d'une étude historique qui semble les contredire faute de contenir
aucune espèce de critique.<br />
Même le langage y paraît apologétique - emploi de mots comme &quot;légitimée&quot;, et
formes impersonnelles,<br />
là où on s'attendait à voir impitoyablement réfuter ces rationalisations de
violences criminelles, donc nécessairement arbitraires..</p>
<p>Il y a peut-être quelque formule à reprendre dans &quot;la prétendue
'Comptabilité Nationale' n'est pas une comptabilité&quot; ?</p>L'a-science économique. - g.l.urn:md5:5db2fd2037d633f446cedd778b9106d52014-01-17T20:15:19+01:00g.l.<p>The Science and Art of Economics<br />
|Peter Boettke|</p>
<p>I just returned from the annual American Economic Association
meetings.<br />
For those who don't attend, this is our professional associations annual
meetings -- it is a huge event in terms of the number of participants, the
number of sessions, and the number of nervous job seekers.<br />
Most of the superstars in the profession are on full display, though many of
the sessions consist of not yet established economists struggling to make their
way in this competitive game of academic/scientific economics.</p>
<p>I attended the meetings religiously for the first decade or more of my
career, then I sort of took a hiatus for the past decade only to attend if I
was on the hiring side of job market, but now I am back trying to get sessions
accepted, etc.<br />
I had one sessions accepted and one rejected for the 2014 meetings, and the
session that I did chair actually had standing room only attendance -- for a
session on Modern Methodologists of the Austrian School of Economics. So I am
encouraged.</p>
<p>But I was encouraged by the meetings independent of that happy surprise for
a simple reason.<br />
I often tell first year graduate students that the secret to success is to
internalize the following truth about economics ---<br />
microeconomics is 1 true theory with an infinite number of applications;<br />
macroeconomics has no true theory, but an infinite number of opinions.<br />
The only time macroeconomics approximates truth is when the explanation of the
macro phenomena is rendered in a form consistent with microeconomics.</p>
<p>And I saw some outstanding microeconomic theorizing on display by many of
the most significant names in the economics profession.<br />
The elite of the profession were well represented at these meetings in the
talks I saw by Daron Acemoglu, Caroline Hoxby, and especially Claudia
Goldin.<br />
The more macroeconomic oriented talks by folks like Larry Summers, etc., were
obviously impressive for the experience they bring to the table and 'wisdom'
they may have learned in their years outside of academia in public policy, but
I wouldn't say I had the same 'scientific' impression as when listening to
Hoxby or Goldin.<br />
There is a science of economics, and there is an art of political
economics.<br />
The elite in this profession are elite for a reason: they are smart, they are
articulate, and they are experienced.<br />
You don't have to agree with them to be impressed by their skill and to realize
how far short of the argumentative standard that they set that you find
yourself.<br />
They are, in short, very impressive minds across the board.<br />
But the science is more analytically impressive than the art I would argue.</p>
<p>The old Roger Garrison line --- there may be macroeconomic problems but only
microeconomic explanations and solutions -- continues to hold true even on the
big stage at the AEA meetings in my opinion.</p>
<p>I did see a lot of what I would consider bad papers presented by the
struggling up and coming -- focused as they are on 'data' and not the
theoretical mechanism unlocking the empirical puzzle.<br />
So I wonder about what the AEA meetings might look like in 2025, but for now,
the elite of my generation still worry about explicating the underlying
microeconomics of phenomena, and in the right hands economic theory is a thing
of beauty.</p>
<p>As I was writing this, I came across Dani Rodrik's piece for the Institute
for Advanced Study Newsletter on the state of economics -- &quot;Economics: Science,
Craft, or Snake Oil?&quot;.<br />
Rodrik is actually quite positive about the discipline, but for slightly
different reasons than myself.<br />
He feels we go astray as a discipline when we seek one-size fits all
solutions.<br />
I agree with that with respect to the &quot;art&quot; of political economy, but not with
respect to the science.<br />
Economic applications is indeed contextual, but the theory that enables us to
understand the variety of manifestations that context produces is not
context-dependent.<br />
Anyway, Rodrik's piece is typically smart and articulate and well-worth
reading; he is after all one of the elite in our profession.</p>
<p>Bottom line: I left the AEA meetings encouraged and motivated.<br />
The science of economics is of course constantly evolving, but it is neither
completely wrong headed nor corrupted as long as we keep the Garrisonian dictum
in mind.<br />
It is in the &quot;art&quot; where things get more complicated and confusing, but also
potentially more interesting if one makes a conscious effort to frame the art
within the argumentative structure of the science.<br />
For all the talk about the necessary curriculum reform, the answer lies in
returning to our scientific roots in choice within constaints, analysis of
comparative institutional filters, and the dynamic mechanisms of coordination
that result from combining the logic of choice with comparative institutional
analysis.</p>
<p>Posted by Peter Boettke on January 06, 2014 at 10:34 AM | Permalink</p>Des différentes façons de dire la même chose. - g.l.urn:md5:1b43320cc1ac05a0497e83788ffbdfbf2013-12-28T15:20:57+01:00g.l.<p>Cf. H.H. Hoppe</p>
<p><a href="http://vimeo.com/79678865" title="http://vimeo.com/79678865" rel="nofollow">http://vimeo.com/79678865</a></p>
<p>and Stephan Kinsella</p>
<p><a href="https://app.box.com/s/v0zgd7v68x068xamqsdi" title="https://app.box.com/s/v0zgd7v68x068xamqsdi" rel="nofollow">https://app.box.com/s/v0zgd7v68x068...</a></p>Psychologie ? Non, praxéologie ! (à jour) - g.l.urn:md5:5f10559ac6f38ed814f8471ed0b946f82013-11-04T20:10:46+01:00g.l.<p>P. Boettke<br />
<a href="http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2013/11/the-great-disruption-in-economic-thought.html" title="http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2013/11/the-great-disruption-in-economic-thought.html" rel="nofollow">
http://www.coordinationproblem.org/...</a></p>Economie de pensée et pensée économique - Railtenzesurn:md5:bc9e741ee3025d11d1933879bf2d79942012-11-12T18:16:33+01:00Railtenzes<p>On ne saurait nier que forcer le raisonnement économique dans les
représentations approximatives du symbolisme mathématicien est un écart
vis-à-vis du principe d'économie.</p>Choix politique et tendance de la pensée économique regrettables. - Lecteur1urn:md5:20dfe8561de4b834b4c47c98cfae5c632010-12-31T17:18:44+01:00Lecteur1<p>Jacques Turgot dans une lettre adressée à Louis XVI, Compiègne, 24 août
1774,</p>
<p>in <em>Louis XVI et Marie-Antoinette</em> de Joël Félix</p>
<p>&quot;Point de banqueroute, ni avouée, ni masquée par des réductions forcées.</p>
<p>Point d'emprunts, parce que tout emprunt diminue toujours le revenu libre ;
il nécessite au bout<br />
de quelques temps ou la banqueroute ou l'augmentation d'impositions. Il ne
faut, en temps<br />
de paix, se permettre d'emprunter que pour liquider des dettes anciennes, ou
pour rembourser<br />
d'autres emprunts faits à un denier plus onéreux.</p>
<p>Pour remplir ces trois points, il n'y a qu'un moyen. C'est de réduire la
dépense au-dessous de la<br />
recette, et assez au-dessous pour pouvoir économiser chaque année, une
vingtaine de millions,<br />
afin de rembourser les dettes anciennes.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>Sans cela, le premier coup de canon forcerait l'Etat à la banqueroute.&quot;</p>
<br />